Coquitlam district bans family from school
Conflict with Blakeburn elementary began when a teacher allegedly shoved their daughter in 2010
Karen and Murray Frank have a hefty stack of documents describing the twists and turns in a nightmare feud with the Coquitlam school district.
The collection includes a police apology for a botched investigation, an apology from the Insurance Corp. of B. C. ( ICBC) for an illegal computer search of their personal information by an employee and a compensation award for their young daughter, found to be a victim of a crime by a teacher at Blakeburn elementary in Port Coquitlam.
There is also evidence of a parent campaign to drive the Franks out of a public park adjacent to the school and two orders banning the couple from all school district property. Recently, they were told that their daughter Lexi, who is completing Grade 4 via a Langley online school, will not be allowed to re- enter Blakeburn in the fall, although she may attend a public school elsewhere in the district.
The Franks say they’ve been hounded, harassed and bullied; the district says they have been abusive, disruptive and demanding.
The acrimony dates back to 2010 when the Franks received reports that their daughter, then in Grade 1, had been handled roughly by a female teacher. Angry about the girl’s inattention, the teacher allegedly grabbed her by the arm and shoved her across the room while shouting at her. Karen Frank said her daughter, then seven, wasn’t badly hurt but was upset and scared.
The Franks reported the incident to the principal and were promised an investigation. They say they were also asked not to contact police but when several months passed without any disciplinary action, they did just that. An officer was assigned to the case but he missed a crucial deadline for the Crown to proceed with the case as a summary offence and no charges were laid.
RCMP superintendent Claude Wilcott issued an apology for the delay and said he agreed that it amounted to a neglect of duty.
The parents also filed a complaint against the teacher with her professional regulatory body, which has yet to make a ruling, and applied for compensation from the Justice Ministry’s crime victim assistance program. After an investigation, that office concluded that Lexi had likely been assaulted and awarded her free counselling.
The following year was no better. The Franks allege Lexi was grabbed by the arm by another teacher, but said they were even more troubled by the discovery that their daughter had found Tylenol 500 tablets on a teacher’s desk and tucked two into her backpack.
A flurry of emails followed and the Franks, angry and unconvinced the school was taking the complaint seriously, again called police and filed a complaint with the B. C. Teacher Regulation Branch. “We wanted something done
We wanted something done about this ... and a guarantee it wouldn’t happen again. KAREN FRANK MOTHER
about this ... and a guarantee it wouldn’t happen again,” Karen Frank said in an interview, adding that staff began shunning them and turning away when Lexi wanted a friendly hug.
The district said an investigation was conducted, but “the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the allegations made by the Franks.”
As the school year drew to a close in June 2011, assistant superintendent Julie Pearce sent the Franks an order under Section 177 of the B. C. School Act advising them that they would no longer be permitted on school property without prior permission.
“Your conduct has been sufficiently disruptive that it has been the subject of complaints and comments by students, parents and staff,” she wrote. “You have sent defamatory emails, made offensive Facebook postings and threatened to take a defamatory website public. You have recently attended the school ... with greater frequency than any other parent. You have made repeated allegations of misconduct against staff and have made allegations of criminal misconduct on the basis of allegations which have proven to have little evidence to support them.”
The Franks said they were only standing up for their daughter and advocating on her behalf but school staff thought otherwise. The worst was yet to come.
The following year, Lexi was enrolled in the Lochiel UConnect Education Centre in Langley, which allowed her to continue her education at home. The Franks began taking her regularly to a public park adjacent to the school, saying they wanted to give her a chance to play with her former classmates during recess and lunch breaks.
But over the summer, there was an information leak about the Section 177 order. School principal Jane Kruks let slip in an email to another Blakeburn parent that the Franks had been barred from school property. The Franks complained and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for B. C., found that their privacy rights had been violated.
As the word spread, the Franks became pariahs in their community. They continued visiting the park, despite mounting tensions on both sides, and the following events unfolded:
• The district hired a security guard to monitor their actions in the park.
• The Blakeburn parent advisory council held a long discussion at a January 2012 meeting about the family and what they might do to support the principal. According to minutes from that meeting, the suggestions included having parents regularly question the Franks in the park about why they were there and warning them not to talk to students, and having a log book in the school office where parents could record their observations.
Asked for comment, the PAC responded with an unsigned statement Thursday saying those suggestions were not condoned or instigated by the PAC executive. “( Blakeburn) parents were merely at the playground because the Franks were exhibiting what they felt to be disturbing and inappropriate behaviour in front of their children on a regular basis at both recess and lunch.”
• One parent, who was employed by ICBC, searched the corporation’s database without authorization for information about the Franks and details about their two automobile insurance claims. In response to a freedom- ofinformation request, ICBC acknowledged an inappropriate and unauthorized search by a former employee and said in a September 2012 letter to them: “Please accept our sincere apologies for this incident concerning your personal information.”
• Allegations circulated then, and continue today, that the Franks were photographing children in the park and posting the pictures on the Internet. The Franks deny that, saying they took photos and video as evidence of their harassment by other parents and school staff.
“It is with shock and horror that in the very community where bullying resulted in the tragic suicide of Amanda Todd, this level of bullying is being practised by some of the parents of elementary- school children,” the Franks said in a statement. “Even more tragic is that this bullying is based on the misinformation maliciously disseminated by the school and the district.”
Recently, the school told students they were no longer allowed to visit the public park during recess and lunch, and Lexi is not permitted to play on school property. A district lawyer is seeking permission to ignore future freedom- of- information requests from the family and has issued another Section 177 order that bans Karen and Murray Frank from district property during school hours.
“The grounds for issuing this order are that you have continuously interfered with the operation of the school district and Blakeburn elementary school through your ongoing harassment and attempted intimidation of staff, parents and students. This order will be enforced by the RCMP if violated,” Pearce wrote. In an interview, she said the district rarely uses its authority to bar individuals from schools but felt it was necessary in this case for safety and security reasons.
Asked why the RCMP has not taken the lead in this case if safety is an issue, the district would say only that it has been working with police. Coquitlam RCMP Cpl. Jamie Chung confirmed that police are investigating, but said the subject of the investigation is the dispute between the parents and the district.
Ann Whiteaker, a former president of the B. C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils ( BCCPAC) who is familiar with the case, wouldn’t speak about the details but deplored the use of a Section 177 to bar parents from school grounds. Although the section is used rarely, the BCCPAC has asked government to amend it to require school officials to not only report such orders to police but also seek their confirmation that the order is appropriate. The confederation wants such orders to include an expiry date and a full appeal process.
Pearce says district staff have spent many hours dealing with the Franks and responding to their many freedom- of- information requests, which she estimated now number more than 30. “We’ve tried very, very hard with this family.
“If there were ( a solution), we would have found it.”
But Whiteaker believes the use of a Section 177 is an excuse not to try harder.
“To say that a parent can’t walk into a school and see their children’s art work on the wall — who are we punishing? What are we modelling? We’re telling ( the children) that their families are not welcome here and I just don’t see how that makes anything better. It might make life easier for staff for a couple of weeks, but it never goes away. It just stirs up parents to the point where they’re so mad, they’re not going to give up.”